Tribunals and Commissions judgments

This bars parties from using limitation to defeat restoration where counsel’s misconduct caused delay, affecting stakeholders in IBC.

The ITAT Patna held that an assessment against a dissolved entity is a legal nullity and quashed the Section 154 penalty order. It clarifies that tax authorities cannot proceed against non-existent bodies, shielding successors and assessees from void demands.

NCLAT Chennai held that the Committee of Creditors may replace a Resolution Professional under Section 22 of the IBC provided the replacement is not contrary to the Code, expunging adverse findings against the former RP and remitting his fee claim to the NCLT for adjudication.

ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that bank credits alone do not prove unexplained investment under Section 69 without asset identification. It deleted the ₹1.28 crore addition and penalty, stressing that credits must be tied to specific assets.

The NCLAT held that Section 238 of the IBC overrides rent control laws, letting a liquidator evict occupants under Section 60(5)(c) without rent control proceedings. This speeds asset recovery in insolvency, affecting liquidators, creditors and occupants.

The NCLAT held that a fraud-initiation claim under Section 65 IBC must be raised before the Adjudicating Authority and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, forcing parties to raise such allegations at the CIRP stage to avoid belated challenges.

NCLAT ruled that guarantors remain liable for total debt despite deed clause limiting liability to mortgaged property value, upholding DRT’s crystallised debt and confirming that guarantee provisions override security clauses under IBC Section 114.

NCLAT upheld the Swiss Challenge method as a valid share-valuation tool in oppression cases under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act 2013, stressing that notice must precede any director disqualification and giving family firms way to break deadlocks.

NCLAT ruled that advance payments for undelivered goods qualify as operational debt under Section 9 of the IBC, and that a demand notice sent via FedEx meets procedural requirements if delivery is proven. The decision expands creditors ability to trigger insolvency proceedings and validates courier based notice service.

NCLAT held that circumstantial evidence of removed hypothecated machinery suffices to prove fraudulent trading under Sec 66 IBC, upholding ₹17.23 crore liability against suspended directors, noting a single asset swap can trigger Sec 66 liability in context.

CESTAT Kolkata held that statements cannot be admitted without examination in chief under Section 9D CEA, annulling a Rs 4.34 crore excise demand in a clandestine clearance case. The decision strengthens protections for taxpayers in excise proceedings.

CESTAT Chennai ruled that processed milk is an intermediate product, not an exempted final product, so Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules does not trigger credit reversal. The decision sets aside the tax demand on Lotte India, clarifying that captive consumption of processed milk in confectionery manufacture does not attract CENVAT credit liability.

CESTAT held that trading income and rent from residential property are not services under Section 65B(44) Finance Act 1994, and set aside a Rs 19,72,702 demand for FY 2013/14 to 2015/16, giving relief to traders and residential landlords wrongly taxed.

CAT Mumbai set aside ₹2,14,168 recovery from a Group C railway employee, holding excess pay cannot be recovered without notice and a hearing (Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel). It ordered the railway to restore basic pay to ₹87,700 and repay the amount with interest.

CESTAT held that adjusting a SAD refund against a sub-judice duty drawback demand is impermissible under Section 142 of the Customs Act, ordering repayment of ₹17,96,125 with interest under Section 11BB and stating that recovery must await adjudication.

The CESTAT Chennai bench held that the limitation period for a refund claim under Section 27(1B)(c) Customs Act starts from communication of the order, not its mere passage. This clarifies refund timing for importers and exporters after provisional assessments, preventing premature time-bar rejections.

The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under section 148 is valid only if the escaped income is an asset as per Explanation 2 to section 153A, noting that unsecured loans received by the assessee qualify as such assets and that liability-side entries do not defeat the extended limitation when the escaped amount exceeds ₹50 lakh.

NCLAT held that the IBBI Liquidation Process (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2025 apply prospectively only and cannot affect liquidation already started under the earlier regime. The ruling shields ongoing liquidation from retrospective changes, impacting creditors, liquidators and purchasers.

CESTAT Allahabad held that accepting an enhanced customs value in writing does not waive the right to appeal under Section 128, Customs Act, 1962. It confirms that such acceptance does not invoke estoppel, safeguarding importers who may inadvertently acknowledge higher valuations during clearance.

The NCLAT held that a without-prejudice deposit cannot substitute the mandatory adjudication of debt, default, and maintainability under Section 7 IBC. Setting aside an NCLT order that closed proceedings upon deposit, the tribunal ruled such deposits do not dispense with the creditor's right to a full determination of statutory prerequisites for CIRP initiation.

The NCLAT Principal Bench ruled that Section 60(2) IBC mandates personal guarantor insolvency proceedings to be heard by the same NCLT bench adjudicating the corporate debtor's CIRP. The tribunal upheld the New Delhi Principal Bench's refusal to transfer a guarantor's case to Chandigarh, confirming that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the bench seized of the main corporate insolvency process.

The NCLAT ruled that Section 32A immunity applies to purchasers acquiring a corporate debtor as a going concern during liquidation, extending clean slate protection to the period between the liquidation order and the sale certificate. This shields buyers from pre-existing liabilities and aligns liquidation sales with resolution plan safeguards.

ITAT Delhi rules a Mauritius entity holding a Category I GBL licence, FPI registration, and actual control over ECB funds satisfies the beneficial ownership test under Article 11 for interest income on ECBs lent to Indian group companies. The tribunal also denies the Section 194LD concessional withholding rate for non-convertible debentures.

NCLAT rules that a personal guarantor filing a Section 94 application after a SARFAESI possession notice has been issued, and enjoying a two-year interim moratorium, constitutes abuse of process to frustrate secured creditor recovery. The ruling clarifies that the IBC moratorium for guarantors does not override SARFAESI enforcement once possession proceedings have commenced.